(dissenting).
If the appellate review of this case were kept within the limits made by the record before us, the issue would be quite a narrow one. The essential question on the trial court record is whether a charter city organized under §§ 19 and 20 of Art. 6 of the 1945 Constitution whose governing body has adopted a resolution proposing to annex unincorporated territory is lawfully authorized to maintain a suit for a declaratory judgment under § 71.015, RSMo 1959, V. A.M.S., “before proceeding as othewise authorized by law or charter for annexation of unincorporated areas”.
As required by § 71.015, commonly referred to as the Sawyers Act, the plaintiff’s petition presents the issues of whether “such annexation is reasonable and necessary to the proper development of said city” and whether the city has the ability “to furnish normal municipal services of said city to said unincorporated area within a reasonable time after said annexation is to become effective.” Section 71.015 does not require pleading or proof of the procedure intended to be followed after the issues are decided in favor of the city. The only pleading filed by the defendants was a motion to dismiss which was sustained. The trial court’s order of dismissal was “granted on the grounds that under the provisions of Art. VI. Sect. 20, Mo.Const., 1945, the Court does not have jurisdiction of the subject matter, and the said petition is therefore ordered dismissed, with prejudice.”
Both the principal and concurring opinions reach the conclusion that the use of the Sawyers Act by a constitutional charter city is not mandatory but is elective or optional. In conclusion the principal opinion states: “The only consideration which prevents us from affirming the present judgment is the possibility that the city may elect to avail itself of the Sawyers Act procedure, to be followed (if successful) by the annexation procedure of ordinance and election under § 20 of Art. 6 of the Constitution. With that in mind, we reverse the judgment and remand the cause, in order that the Court may afford the city an opportunity to so elect; if it declines, the original judgment should be re-entered, and we so direct.” (Italics added.) The concurring opinion in the last two paragraphs agrees with this judgment and procedure, stating that “such a course would be completely optional.”
The City of Hannibal has exercised its option or elected to avail itself of the Sawyers Act procedure. As shown by the rec*292ord and recognized in the principal opinion, the governing body of the City adopted appropriate resolutions evidencing its intention to annex and it has filed its suit for a declaratory judgment in conformity with § 71.015. In my opinion, the requirement of the principal opinion, italicized in the immediately preceding paragraph, that the City further elect to proceed by “ordinance and election” is not warranted on the record. It may be that by a proper pleading in a declaratory judgment action such an issue could be presented for adjudication, but neither the petition nor the motion to dismiss does so. It is difficult to comprehend how a requirement to elect as to further procedure could be engrafted upon the statutory action which is described rather completely in § 71.015.
The trial court appears to have ruled the motion to dismiss on the assumption that the City of Hannibal as a charter city could only extend its territorial limits by a charter amendment and that a declaratory judgment under the Sawyers Act was incompatible with that procedure. At any rate, the briefs are fashioned along those lines and perhaps it is necessary for the opinions to do likewise. This demonstrates, however, the disadvantage of disposing of a case before the issues are properly developed and isolated in a proper proceedings.
The trial court as well as the principal opinion relies upon McConnell v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 282 S.W.2d 518, which in turn is based on statements in State ex inf. Taylor ex rel. Kansas City v. North Kansas City, 360 Mo. 374, 228 S.W.2d 762, which we believe to be unnecessary and erroneous. The principal opinion does disavow, and very properly so, the assumption made in McConnell that a “resolution” as used in § 71.015 was the equivalent of an annexation ordinance.
The earliest Missouri case pointing out the distinction between resolutions and ordinances is City of Cape Girardeau v. Fougeu, 30 Mo.App. 551, 556, in which the court stated: “According to ordinary parliamentary practice, a resolution is a very different thing from a law or an ordinance. A resolution is merely a suggestion or direction in writing, concurred in by the two houses of the assembly, if there be two houses, or passed by one house, if there be but one, and not submitted to the executive for his approval. A resolution is ordinarily passed without the forms and delays which are generally required by constitutions and municipal charters as prerequisites to the enactment of valid laws or ordinances. It need be read but once and may be passed by a viva-voce vote, without calling the ayes and noes, whereupon, when engrossed, it becomes operative.” In State ex rel. Jones v. Atterbury, Mo., 300 S.W.2d 806, 817, this court in banc stated: “Generally, it may be said that a legislative body uses a resolution to express an opinion or purpose with respect to a given matter or thing and it is temporary in nature, while a law is intended to direct and control permanently matters applying to persons and things in general.” The court in banc again recognized the distinction in State ex rel. Whittington v. Strahm, Mo., 374 S.W.2d 127, 131. See also Schmoll v. Housing Authority of St. Louis County, Mo., 321 S.W.2d 494, 498-499 [2-4]; City of Springfield to use of McEvilly v. Knott, 49 Mo.App. 612, 617; City of Poplar Bluff, to use of Wheeler v. Hoag, 62 Mo.App. 672, 675-676; Wheeler v. City of Poplar Bluff, 149 Mo. 36, 49 S.W. 1088, 1089 [2].
Another distinction not noted in the McConnell case is that § 71.015 deals with the “governing body of any city” and “such city” undertaking an annexation. That was the factual situation in the McConnell case as in the case at bar. No case has been brought to our attention where a proposal to annex territory has been initiated by the petition of electors which is an optional procedure for amendment of a city charter as set out in § 20 of Art. 6. There is no statutory authority for the annexation of additional territory by the petition of the electors of any city including charter cities. *293If annexation is a governmental function, as we shall undertake to demonstrate, it must follow that the electors of a constitutional charter city could not lawfully initiate an annexation proceeding and conclude it by a charter amendment without legislative authority. There are sound reasons why it should not be permitted.
In order to determine the extent of legislative control over the annexation of territory by constitutional charter cities, we must first determine what powers are granted to such cities by the “home rule” provisions of §§ 19 and 20 of Art. 6. The grant of power is found solely in the first sentence of § 19. It reads as follows: “Any city having more than 10,000 inhabitants may frame and adopt a charter for its own government, consistent with and subject to the constitution and laws of the state, in the following manner.” This is the sum total of the grant of “home rule” government. Everything else in §§ 19 and 20 deals with the “manner” of adopting an original charter and thereafter amending it. Missouri was a pioneer in providing home rule but a number of states have the same or similar provisions. Much has been written by way of establishing what matters are purely municipal affairs within the meaning of “a charter for its own government” and what are governmental matters of state-wide concern which are reserved for legislative control by the phrase “consistent with and subject to the * * * laws of the state.” Quotations from some of the treatises and opinions will sufficiently indicate the guidelines that have been established.
“It is an essential element of all constitutional provisions establishing the principle of municipal home rule that the Constitution and general laws of the state shall continue in force within the municipalities which have framed their own charters, and that the power of the municipality to legislate shall be confined to municipal affairs. Such charters do not supersede or prevent the enactment of state laws of general concern, in which the state has a sovereign interest; and where the provisions of such charters, or of legislation enacted thereunder, conflict with the general laws of this character, the state laws will prevail.” 37 Am.Jur., Municipal Corporations § 106, pp. 715-716.
“In general, home-rule provisions of a state constitution make a home-rule municipality free from the control or supervision of the legislature as to powers or functions which are municipal or local in character, or as to matters, exclusive control of which is given to the municipality by the constitution. On the other hand, constitutional provisions securing to municipal corporations freedom from legislative interference are not regarded as a complete surrender of the governmental powers and functions of the state; and with respect to governmental powers and functions, and matters of general statewide concern, as distinguished from matters of purely local and municipal character, the municipal corporation remains amenable to state control, in the absence of express exemption. Notwithstanding such a constitutional provision, the relation of the municipal corporation to the state is not altered; the municipal corporation remains the creature of the state, its agent in the exercise of governmental functions.” 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 187, pp. 345-346.
A comprehensive article entitled, “Municipal Home Rule in Missouri”, published in the 1953 Volume of the Washington University Law Quarterly, written by Mr. Henry J. Schmandt, a Missouri lawyer, then an Assistant Professor of Government at St. Louis University, is well-worth, reading in its entirety. The portion of particular interest here, however, concerns the rules established by the cases of State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis, 318 Mo. 870, 2 S.W.2d 713, Coleman v. Kansas City, 353 Mo. 150, 182 S.W.2d 74, and Kansas City v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co., 337 Mo. 913, 87 S.W.2d 195. *294Analyzing and quoting from these cases, Mr. Schmandt had this to say, pp. 392-394:
“If there were any doubts as to the judicial acceptance of the governmental-proprietary function rule, they were unequivocally resolved in Coleman v. Kansas City, a case which dealt with a conflict between the provisions of a state statute and the Kansas City charter pertaining to the salaries of the local license collector. In holding that the statute prevailed, the court declared:
“ * * * [A]s to matters pertaining to private, local corporate functions the city holds its power independent of control by the General Assembly, but as to governmental functions the State retains control. On this point the city’s argument is wholly based on the fact that the license taxes are used exclusively for municipal purposes. That fact is not determinative. The distinction is not between local and general concern, but between corporate and governmental functions. The power of taxation is a governmental function * * * [Italics added.]
“It should be observed that the Carpenter and Coleman cases did not constitute a complete return to the Garner doctrine [State ex rel. Garner v. Missouri & K. Telephone Co., 189 Mo. 83, 88 S.W. 41] insofar as that ruling would deny a home rule city control over any governmental function in the absence of statutory delegation. The two later cases would permit a self-chartered municipality to exercise jurisdiction and control over such activities without legislative authorization if they were primarily of local concern and if there was no contrary or conflicting enactment of the General Assembly in existence. This was the rule that was emphasized in a comprehensive summation of the powers of a home rule city which the court undertook in Kansas City v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Company [337 Mo. 913, 923, 87 S.W.2d 195, 200]. Admitting that its prior decisions were by no means harmonious, the court defined the significance of local rule, saying:
“It is an essential element of all constitutional provisions establishing the principle of municipal home rule that the Constitution and general laws of the State shall continue in force within the municipalities which have framed their own charters, and that the power of the municipality to legislate shall be confined to municipal affairs. On the other hand, after the adoption of a home rule charter by a municipal corporation, the Legislature cannot, even by a general law, affect the powers of the municipality with respect to matters of municipal and local concern.
(( * * *
“ ⅜ * * [A]s to its form of organization and as to its private, local corporate functions, and the manner of exercising them, the Constitutional provision grants to the people of the cities designated, part of the legislative power of the State for the purpose of determining such matters and incorporating them in their charter as they see fit, free from the control of the General Assembly * * *. [I]n matters, which are governmental functions, the State retains control and as to such matters, the provisions of a city charter, although adopted under the constitutional provision therefor, must be and remain consistent with and subject to the statutes of the State enacted by the Legislature.
“It is * * * sometimes difficult to determine the border line between governmental and corporate functions * ⅜ *. However, certain functions have, by this court, definitely been determined governmental, the control of which remains in the State. The police power is one * * *. Some of the other matters, which are purely governmental functions, are those pertaining to suffrage and elections, education, regulation of public utilities and admin*295istration of justice * * *. These may be delegated to or taken away from the city in whole or in part, within the wisdom of the Legislature. [337 Mo. at 926, 927, 87 S.W.2d at 202, 203.]
“Despite the court’s patent inconsistency and lack of preciseness in terminology, it now appeared from this series of cases that the constitutional ambiguities of the home rule provisions had finally been resolved in favor of the governmental-corporate functions doctrine, with the problem of distinguishing between the activities which fall into these respective categories remaining.”
State ex rel. Carpenter v. City of St. Louis, 318 Mo. 870, 2 S.W.2d 713, 720 [8], referred to in “Municipal Home Rule in Missouri”, held that: “Matters of purely municipal, corporate concern a special charter may control, and it may not be amended by a special law, though it must be in harmony with the general law where it touches upon matters of state policy.” An apt statement from State ex rel. Reynolds v. Jost, 265 Mo. 51, 175 S.W. 591, 595, is: “In fact, the very constitutional provision behind which respondents seek to hide limits the scope of their charter powers. Such document, upon matters of general state concern, as is the peace and safety of its citizens, must be subject, not only to the Constitution, but the laws of the state as well.”
Generally speaking, the constitutional requirement that the city charter must be consistent with and subject to the Constitution and laws of the state means that inconsistent charter provisions and ordinances concerning the exercise of governmental functions are void. Turner v. Kansas City, 354 Mo. 857, 191 S.W.2d 612, 615 [2]; State ex rel. Rothrum v. Darby, 345 Mo. 1002, 137 S.W.2d 532, 537 [6].
The next question is whether the annexation by cities of additional territory is a governmental function of state-wide concern or merely a municipal or corporate affair. In all cases where the issue has been squarely presented, it has been decided that annexation is governmental in nature and subject to control by the general assembly. In this regard the court held in State ex rel. and to Use of Behrens v. Crismon, 354 Mo. 174, 188 S.W.2d 937, 939 [2], that the power to create or establish municipal corporations or to enlarge or diminish their area is a political function which rests solely in the legislative branch of the government and is practically unlimited in the absence of constitutional restrictions. In Town of Alexandria v. Clark County, Mo., 231 S.W.2d 622, 624 [5], it was held that the territorial limits of a political subdivision, like the power to tax, is a political question to be determined in the manner specified by the general assembly. Apparently the only limitation on the general assembly with respect to the organization of cities, changing their charters, and specifying the kind of officials and their powers, is that the control must be by general laws. Art. 3, § 40(22) ; Art. 6, §§ 15 and 22, Constitution of 1945.
In the recent annexation case of McDonnell Aircraft Corporation v. City of Berkeley, Mo., 367 S.W.2d 498, 503 [4], this court reviewed cases and held: “Therefore, our conclusion is that annexation of additional territory is a matter of more than merely municipal affairs and concern and that the reasons for applying the test of unreasonableness amounting to arbitrary, capricious action and abuse of discretion are equally applicable to annexations by constitutional charter cities and those organized under general statutes.” Italics added. Among the cases cited was City of Olivette v. Graeler, Mo., 338 S.W.2d 827, 836 [14].
The basic fallacy of the principal opinion is the contention that a charter city under § 20 of Art. 6 has the “power and authority” to annex unincorporated territory without legislative authority. The opinion, pages 10-11, states this proposition repeatedly and in various ways, such as: that § 20 “gives to charter cities a power of annexation by charter amendment which is equivalent to a statutory authorization” ; § 20 “fixes, irrevocably, the mode by *296which charter cities may annex territory”; a charter city may “by virtue of § 20 alone, annex unincorporated territory” subject to a judicial determination of reasonableness; that the general assembly may “not interfere with the constitutional method of annexation”; and finally the opinion adheres to the “proposition that every annexation by a charter city is a charter amendment”.
The proposition asserted necessarily means that the state by virtue of § 20 has relinquished and ceded to charter cities the state’s power and authority to regulate annexation of unincorporated territory which absent any such relinquishment would abide in the general assembly. In this, as in other cases we will mention later, there is a tendency to isolate § 20 from § 19 and to say that § 20 gives an unlimited right to amend a city charter. Even if we consider it alone, the language of § 20 cannot reasonably be given the meaning ascribed to it, but the rule of construction is well established that provisions of a constitution dealing with a single or related subject must be considered together and not as detached fragments or isolated provisions. State ex rel. Randolph County v. Walden, 357 Mo. 167, 206 S.W.2d 979, 982-983 [3]; Chaffin v. Christian County, Mo., 359 S.W.2d 730, 734 [5]; State ex rel. City of Marshall v. Hackmann, 274 Mo. 551, 203 S.W. 960, 961-962 [3]. Therefore, the right of a city to amend its charter as provided in § 20 must be considered in connection with § 19 which limits the city’s legislative power to “a charter for its own government, consistent with and subject to the constitution and laws of the state.”
The general assembly has all the legislative power of the state not denied it by the Constitution. Any constitutional limitation on its legislative power must be strictly construed in favor of the general assembly and such limitations must be expressly imposed or clearly implied. Hickey v. Board of Education of City of St. Louis, 363 Mo. 1039, 256 S.W.2d 775, 778 [9, 10]; State ex rel. and to Use of Hughes v. Southwestern Telephone Co., 352 Mo. 715, 179 S.W.2d 77, 80 [3]; State ex rel. Heimberger v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri, 268 Mo. 598, 188 S.W. 128, 133 [13].
The subject of annexation is not mentioned in either § 19 or 20. No intent can be inferred from the grant of the right to adopt “a charter for its own government” unless annexation is a purely municipal or corporate matter which we have seen from the cases cited it is not. Nor is annexation an inherent right of a city, charter or otherwise, because a city may function as such without the right to extend its limits. Furthermore, the general assembly has undertaken from the beginning to regulate the matter of annexation by all cities because it concerns more than the city itself. It is governmental in nature and of state-wide concern.
The erroneous concept that a constitutional charter city had annexation rights not possessed by other cities arose from cases involving the city of Kansas City. It arose not from a construction of the constitutional provisions but from a misinterpretation or mistaken application of language used in previous decisions involving annexations by Kansas City which had complicated its annexation procedures by setting out the specific description of its boundaries in its original charter adopted pursuant to the constitutional provisions. It is important to keep in mind that prior to the adoption of the 1945 Constitution, which lowered the population requirements from 100,000 to 10,000, Kansas City was the only city iri^the state that had a constitutional charter under these provisions. In fact, it was the only city in the state that had the requisite population except St. Louis which was chartered under another constitutional provision which imposed similar limitations in granting that city home rule powers.
In 1887 the general assembly enacted legislation implementing the home rule provisions which had first appeared in the 1875 Constitution. Laws 1887, pp. 42-51. Section 41 of the legislative act (p. 49) pro*297vided the manner in which charter cities could extend their limits and set out the further requirements necessary when the area annexed included any incorporated city, town or village. This became § 1880 of the 1889 Revised Statutes and with some amendments is now § 82.090, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. Kansas City adopted a home rule charter on May 8, 1889.
There are five decisions of this court dealing with annexations by Kansas City which should he briefly noted. The first case, City of Westport v. Kansas City, 103 Mo. 141, 15 S.W. 68, was an attempt to annex the incorporated City of Westport. Pursuant to the provisions of § 1880, RSMo 1889, the voters of Westport alone had approved the proposition. The essential holding of this court was that since the boundaries of Kansas City were fixed and defined in its charter the annexation could not be by ordinance alone but the charter also had to be amended by the voters of Kansas City in accordance with the constitutional provisions for amending a charter before the annexation could be effective. The pertinent holding in State ex inf. Major v. Kansas City, 233 Mo. 162, 134 S.W. 1007, was that the charter of Kansas City could be amended so as to make an annexation effective by J^ths of the electors who actually voted on the proposition as provided in the Constitution instead of the greater majority of %ths of all qualified voters of Kansas City as required by the Kansas City charter.
The case of Kansas City v. Stegmiller, 151 Mo. 189, 52 S.W. 723, was the second and successful attempt by Kansas City to annex the City of Westport. This time the council of Kansas City passed a resolution proposing the annexation and the proposition was approved by the voters in both cities. The opinion held that § 1880, RSMo 1889, as amended, Laws 1895, p. 54, relied on by Kansas City, was a valid enactment, that the City of Kansas City had complied with the requirements of the Constitution with respect to amending its charter, and that by reason of such amendment the annexation had become effective. The essential question determined in State ex inf. Taylor ex rel. Kansas City v. North Kansas City, 360 Mo. 374, 228 S.W.2d 762, was that the voters of Kansas City could approve an annexation ordinance by a majority vote of the electors as provided in the Constitution for amendment of city charters rather than by a ⅜ths majority required by the statute which had not been amended to conform to a change in the Constitution.
McConnell v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 282 S.W.2d 518, held in effect that the Sawyers Act was not applicable to annexations by Kansas City because the Act was incompatible with constitutional provisions regulating the amendment of the charter of Kansas City in that a resolution (treated as an ordinance) could not be adopted and a declaratory judgment obtained within the time for holding elections for the approval of amendments as provided in the Constitution; further it discussed a possible conflict if an annexation were to be attempted by means of the initiative method of amending the charter. This latter question was not before the court because, among other reasons, the annexation was initiated by an ordinance enacted by the city council.
The McConnell case, Mo., 282 S.W.2d 518, and State ex inf. Taylor ex rel. Kansas City v. North Kansas City, 360 Mo. 374, 228 S.W.2d 762, were referred to by the trial court and are chiefly relied upon by the respondents herein. The McConnell case, referring to Kansas City, stated that “an extension of a city’s corporate limits is a charter amendment within the purview of Art. VI, § 20” (282 S.W.2d at 520), and cited the Taylor case as its authority. The Taylor case, 228 S.W.2d 762, 770-771 [3-5], was the first which definitely asserted that the right to adopt and amend a constitutional charter “carries with it the right to so amend as to effect lawful annexation”, and that specific legislative authority to extend the city’s limits was unnecessary although such statutory authority did exist. *298It quotes a statement from the Stegmiller case to the effect that any act on the part of Kansas City which contracts or expands its territorial jurisdiction is an amendment of its charter, and that the ordinance in question extending the city limits was an amendment of the charter within the purview of then § 16 of Art. 9 of the Constitution. 228 S.W.2d at 769. The Taylor case further at that point also quotes from the Stegmiller case to the effect that insofar as the action of Kansas City alone is concerned there is a plain constitutional grant of the power to extend its limits and a definite mode pointed out. These unwarranted statements have led to the difficulty in the McConnell case as well as the instant case. If unexplained and not considered in context, the statements are misleading. The Constitution does provide and point out the manner of amending a charter; however, statements from these early cases have been misinterpreted as holding that § 20 bestows the right of annexation when all it does is to provide the means by which annexation is made effective when the description of the city limits is made a part of the charter.
There was at all times statutory authority for annexation by charter cities. As amended and now existing it is § 82.090. As pointed out previously, the Stegmiller case is relied on for the proposition that the right of a charter city to annex is a direct grant by the Constitution. In fact the case recognizes that the general assembly has the right to regulate annexations and that amendments to the charter must be in harmony with and subject to the laws of the state. In this regard the Stegmiller case says, 151 Mo. at 200, 52 S.W. at 725: “The only limitation of the power of amendment is that it must be adopted by three-fifths of the qualified voters at a general or special election after the due publication of the proposal and that the charter as amended shall always he in harmony with and subject to the laws of the State.” Italics added. Again at page 205, 52 S.W. at page 726, the Stegmiller opinion states: “While, therefore, Kansas City had the right, under section 16, article 9, of the constitution to frame its own charter within the domain of purely municipal government, subject to and in harmony with the constitution and laws of the state, it was entirely competent and clearly within the power of the general assembly to provide for its relation to other contiguous municipalities of the state, and it could only absorb these outlying cities, towns, or villages by the consent of the state which had created them.”
We find no fault with the result reached in the cases other than McConnell. The statements in the prior decisions to the effect that § 20 of Art. 6 constituted a grant of the power of annexation were not necessary to the decisions and should be regarded as surplusage. In my opinion the holding in the McConnell case that the Sawyers Act was not applicable is erroneous. It is no authority for holding that the Sawyers Act is not mandatory in the present case. It does not appear necessary, however, to deal further with the McConnell case in this litigation.
The right to amend a charter under § 20 of Art. 6 must be construed in connection with § 19 which grants the home rule powers. An amendment must be germane to and cannot rise above the authority to adopt a charter for the city’s own government consistent with and subject to the Constitution and laws of the State. When a home rule charter city enacts an ordinance or endeavors to amend its charter so as to adopt a measure not of purely municipal concern, it must derive such power from some statute which authorizes the adoption by the city of such a measure. Bowler v. Nagel, 228 Mich. 434, 200 N.W. 258, 259[1], 37 A.L.R. 1154. The incongruity of this constitutional provision granting authority to annex is illustrated by this statement in State ex rel. Snell v. Warner, 4 Wash. 773, 31 P. 25, 26, 17 L.R.A. 263: “To permit the city by its own act to annex outside territory, without fur*299ther legislation on the subject than is contained in the constitution, would be to extend the language of that instrument, and make it read, in effect, that a corporation might frame a charter for its own government and the government of such additional territory as it might choose to include within its limits. Therefore the provisions of the constitution with regard to the amendment of such charters could have no force without the assistance of legislation.”
Unnecessary and unguarded statements, primarily in Kansas City v. Stegmiller, 151 Mo. 189, 52 S.W. 723, appear to be relied on in subsequent cases up to and including the principal opinion in this case to support the proposition that a charter city may "by virtue of § 20 alone, annex unincorporated territory” and that “every annexation by a charter city is a charter amendment.” To say that there are no restrictions imposed on charter cities as to the scope and kind of amendments is patently unsound. The words used do not so state nor do they permit any such construction.
In the case at bar, the appellant City in its supplemental brief and oral argument clearly presented the issue of whether the phrase “a charter for its own government, consistent with and subject to the Constitution and laws of the state” confers on a charter city the right to annex unincorporated territory in contravention of general laws regulating annexation. A cursory examination of §§ 19 and 20 and a moment’s reflection on the power of the legislature to determine matters of state policy would seem to be sufficient to reveal that the state has not delegated this governmental function to charter cities except by statute. Certainly the City of Hannibal is entitled to be told what clause, phrase or word in these constitutional sections confers upon a charter city, either expressly or by implication, the power and authority to annex additional territory. Neither the principal opinion nor any of the previous cases have done so.
So far we have undertaken to show that §§ 19 and 20, taken singly or in combination, do not constitute a grant of power expressly or impliedly authorizing a charter city to annex adjoining territory, and that annexation is a governmental function which the general assembly can and has regulated. Next we must be concerned with that portion of the principal opinion which holds that “in so far as § 82.090 purports to permit a charter city to annex territory by ordinance alone it is unconstitutional” and the further holding that the city limits of Hannibal are “defined” in its charter. The opinion appears to hold that all charter cities must “define” their city limits in their charter which, if so, would bring all annexations by constitutional charter cities under the rule, applicable so far solely to Kansas City, that where the boundaries are set out in the charter, the charter must be amended before the annexation becomes effective. If we are correct in the proposition that the general assembly has the legislative power to regulate annexations by constitutional charter cities as well as others, the question remaining is whether Hannibal has “defined” its city limits in its charter.
Section 82.090 contemplates that any charter city may extend its limits by ordinance except where the limits are “defined” in the charter of the city, in which case the annexation ordinance shall be in the form of a proposed amendment to the charter which must be approved by a majority of the voters before it is effective. The predecessor of § 82.090 was amended as a result of the decision in City of Westport v. Kansas City in which counsel for Kansas City argued that it should not be necessary to amend the charter because the description of the city limits had been included in the charter unnecessarily and should be disregarded. In answer to this contention, the court stated, 15 S.W. 69: “In looking through this adopted charter, we find a vast number of sections which might have been omitted without affecting the charter taken as a whole. But it does not follow that *300they are not parts thereof, because they could have been omitted. So, too, the freeholders, in framing the proposed charter, and the voters, in adopting it, did, by the second section thereof, fix and define the territorial limits of the municipality, and that section is as much a part of the charter as any other section therein contained. This section, defining the limits of Kansas City, is made a part of the charter, and the question whether it might or might not have been omitted is foreign to the present inquiry.” Italics added. It will be noted that the court used the word “define” in describing how the boundaries were made a part of the Kansas City charter.
After the Westport decision the statute, then § 1880, RSMo 1889, was amended (Laws 1895, p. 54) by adding a proviso in substantially the same language as the last sentence of § 82.090, RSMo 1959, V.A. M.S. Omitting the nonessential middle portion relating principally to the annexation of other cities, the present section reads:
“Any constitutional charter city, may at any time extend its limits by ordinance, specifying with accuracy the new lines to which it is proposed to extend its limits. * * * In all cases where the corporate limits are defined in the charter of the city, the ordinance extending the limits shall be in the form of a proposed amendment to the charter of the city, and before the amendment shall be of any force or effect, it shall be submitted to and accepted by a majority of the qualified voters of the city voting at a general or special election, in all respects and in compliance with all the requirements provided for amendments to the charter of the city.” Italics added. The proviso and present last sentence of the statute follows the language of the court in the Westport case with respect to the corporate limits being “defined” in the charter. Obviously the statute contemplates that there would be other cases where the boundaries would not be defined in the city charter and in such cases the first sentence of the section requires that the city limits must be specified with accuracy in the annexation ordinance.
The word “define” has been judicially defined, but the decisions add nothing to the clarity of the definition in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary which, as here pertinent, is: “to fix, decide, or prescribe, clearly and with authority * * to mark the limits of: determine with precision or exhibit clearly the boundaries of”.
In the face of § 82.090 and the Westport decision, it cannot reasonably be said that the Hannibal charter fixes, marks the limits of, or determines clearly the boundaries of the City. On the contrary, the charter states that the City of Hannibal shall continue as a municipal body “within the corporate limits as now established or as hereafter established in the manner provided by law” (§ 1.01), and that adjoining land “may be annexed to the city upon passage of an ordinance by the City Council to that effect and duly enacted pursuant to the applicable laws of the State of Missouri in force at the time of such annexation” (§ 1.06). The principal opinion refuses to give to the word “define” its usual and ordinary meaning and further does violence to the legislative intent clearly expressed in § 82.090.
The physical condition of the Hannibal charter after this annexation is completed, if done by charter amendment as the principal opinion requires, will demonstrate the fallacy of the holding that the boundaries of the City are presently “defined” in the charter. The description of Hannibal’s boundaries attached to plaintiff’s petition takes up thirteen pages of the transcript. According to the principal opinion all this will have to be put in the charter in lieu of the present provisions. In addition to the City’s legal right to define the limits by ordinance rather than freezing them in the charter, there are practical reasons why a city should be permitted to define its limits by ordinance. The expense of an election is avoided where the limits can be extended by ordinance; if there is a strong feeling *301in the City against the annexation, a referendum can be had. Also corrections can be made more conveniently and economically by ordinance. See General Installation Company v. University City, Mo., 379 S.W.2d 601, 604[5, 6].
The holdings of the principal opinion regarding §§ 71.015 and 82.090 are clearly contrary to basic rules of construction. It fails to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used in the statutes and produces inconsistencies and absurdities in their meaning which should never be attributed to the enactment of a legislature unless there is no rational means of escaping it. State ex rel. Heimberger v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri, 268 Mo. 598, 188 S.W. 128, 135[15]. Furthermore, the rule is well settled that the courts will not hold a statute unconstitutional unless it contravenes the organic law in such a manner as to leave no doubt that it is unconstitutional. State ex rel. Hughes v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 352 Mo. 715, 179 S.W.2d 77, 80-81[4]. The contrary approach appears to have been used in this case. Moreover, it is not the function of the courts to deal with the policy, wisdom or justice of constitutional or statutory provisions. State ex rel. Heimberger v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri, 268 Mo. 598, 188 S.W. 128, 131[8]. The general assembly is much better equipped than this court to hold hearings and make investigations to determine in what instances annexations should be approved by the voters.
I would hold the Sawyers Act, § 71.015, to be mandatory in annexation proceedings by constitutional charter cities just as it has been held in annexations by special charter cities and others. See Julian v. Mayor, Councilmen and Citizens of the City of Liberty, Mo., 391 S.W.2d 864; City of Olivette v. Graeler, Mo., 338 S.W.2d 827; and City of St. Joseph v. Hankinson, Mo., 312 S.W.2d 4. I would hold that § 82.090 is a valid enactment which authorized the City of Hannibal to annex by ordinance as it has been doing and now proposes to do again. Accordingly I would reverse and remand the case.
For these reasons I dissent.